LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:48:01 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fully expandable "x" argument (was "expandable \uppercase...")
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (14 lines) 
On 21/02/2011 11:20, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>> (I haven't looked into doing it non-expandably, which would be more robust.)
> 
> My claim is that expandable is just as robust as non-expandable if
> - we have access to the full argument (i.e. no peeking ahead)
> - there is no token of catcode 1 other than a true "{"
> - there is no token of catcode 10 and character code other than 32 (space).

I suspect condition (2) is  killer. While assuming "{" is catcode 1 is
fine for LaTeX-like input, what happens if you're using LaTeX3 with some
other input syntax (for example XML)?
-- 
Joseph Wright

ATOM RSS1 RSS2